Ex Parte Luxton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 2, 2013

12077646 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD HART LUXTON
____________

Appeal 2010-010000
Application 12/077,646
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before SALLY G. LANE, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
SCOTT R. BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 by the Patent
Applicant from the Patent Examiner‟s rejections of claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15
in U.S. Application 12/077,646. The Board‟s jurisdiction for this appeal is
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The claims are directed to a safety razor blade unit comprising a
plurality of cutting edges and a “further cutting edge” at the rear of the unit.
The “further cutting edge” has a passage for “through flow of rinsing water.”
Appeal 2010-010000
Application 12/077,646

2
According to the patent application, the passage “allows effective removal of
soap and shaving debris from the underside of the blade so that the
performance of this blade will not be impaired by a space on the underside
of the blade clogging up.” (Spec. 3: 30; 4: 7-10.)
Figure 2, reproduced below, shows an embodiment of the claimed
razor unit with the passage for “through flow of rinsing water”:

Figure 2 show a passage in the razor unit for through flow of rinsing
water that is formed by a slot 35 which extends along the frame element 30.
The slot 35 connects the gap defined between the second guard surface 33
and the cutting edge 37 (“further cutting edge” of the claimed razor unit) of
the blade 36 with an opening 38 at the bottom face of the blade unit. (Spec.
8: 20-23.) The “further cutting edge” can be used as a trimming blade. (See
Id. at 5:20-22; 9: 11-12.)
The claims stand rejected by the Examiner as follows:
Appeal 2010-010000
Application 12/077,646

3
1. Claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Brown
1
in view of GP „486,
2
Rodrigues,
3
Meyer,
4
Sellera,
5
or Asano.
6

2. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brown in view
GP „486, Rodrigues, Meyer, Sellera, or Asano, and further in view of
Apprille.
7

3. Claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Rozenkranc
8
in view of GP „486, Rodrigues, Meyer, Sellera, or Asano.
4. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rozenkranc in
view GP „486, Rodrigues, Meyer, Sellera, or Asano, and further in view of
Apprille.
The Examiner also made a provisional double-patenting rejection over
claims 28-48 of Application No. 11/337,759 (Ans. 10). A Board decision in
that case affirmed all the Examiner‟s rejections (Decision in Appeal No.
2010-002677). A Notice of Abandonment was mailed January 17, 2012. As
the case is abandoned, the rejection is moot.
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A safety razor blade unit comprising
an upper face, a bottom face, a front face and a rear face,
a plurality of cutting edges positioned between a first
guard surface and a first cap surface at the upper face, the first
guard surface comprising an elastomeric strip, and

1
U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2004/0055156 A1 published Mar. 25, 2004.
2
DE 3733486 A1 published Apr. 20, 1989.
3
U.S. Patent No. 2,048,565 issued July 21, 1936.
4
U.S. Patent No. 3,138,865 issued June 30, 1964.
5
U.S. Patent No. 4,077,119 issued Mar. 7, 1978.
6
U.S. Patent No. 4,265,015 issued May 5, 1981.
7
U.S. Patent No. 6,044,542 issued Apr. 4, 2000.
8
U.S. Patent No. 6,276,061 B1 issued Aug. 21, 2001.
Appeal 2010-010000
Application 12/077,646

4
a further cutting edge positioned between a second guard
surface and a second cap surface at the rear face, a distance
between the first guard surface and the first cap surface,
measured in a plane tangential thereto, being greater than a
distance between the second guard surface and the second cap
surface, measured in a plane tangential thereto, wherein a
passage for through flow of rinsing water connects a gap
between the further cutting edge and the second guard surface
with an opening at the bottom face, the plane tangential to the
first guard surface and the first cap surface defining an angle
between 10° and 135° to the plane tangential to the second
guard surface and the second cap surface.

DISCUSSION
With respect to claim 1, the Brown and Rozenkranc publications were
found by the Examiner to describe a safety razor with almost all the features
of the claimed safety razor blade unit, but not with a passage for through
flow of rinsing water between the further cutting edge (“trimming blade”)
and second guard surface as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5 & 7). However, the
Examiner found this element to have been described in GP „486, Rodrigues,
Meyer, Sellera, and Asano (id. at 5 & 7-8). The Examiner determined it
would have been obvious to include a rinse-through passage for the
trimming blade since “such passages are old and well known” and have the
“benefit” of “facilitating cleaning” of the blade after shaving (id. at 5 & 7).
Appellant contends that the concept of passages for “through flow of
rinsing water” was disclosed by and readily available to both Brown and
Rozenkranc, but neither “elected” to use a rinse-through passage for the
additional trimming blade (“further cutting edge” of claim 1) (Br. 4 & 6).
Rather, Appellant contends that each of Brown and Rozenkranc utilized
rinse-through passages for the primary blade, but not the trimming blade
Appeal 2010-010000
Application 12/077,646

5
(id.). Thus, Appellant argues the skilled worker would have been led away
from the idea of providing a rinse-through passage for the trimming blade
(id.).
Appellant also contends that a trimming blade would cut considerably
less hair than the main shaving blades, and that the benefit of a rinse-through
passage for it would not have been apparent to the ordinary skilled worker
(id. at 5 & 6).
The fact that rinse-through passages were available to Brown and
Rozenkranc, but not utilized for their trimming blades does not constitute a
teaching away from the claimed subject matter. Appellant has not invoked
the proper standard of obviousness.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of
this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.
Thus, obviousness is determined through the eyes of “a person having
ordinary skill in the art.” The issue in these rejections is whether the
ordinary skilled worker would have had reason to use a rinse-through
passage in the trimming blade of Brown and Rozenkranc, not whether
Brown or Rozenkranc individually made or suggested such a modification to
their invention.
The Examiner provided a logical and fact-based reason as to why the
skilled worker would have incorporated a rinse-through passage into the
trimming blade of Brown and Rozenkranc, that is, for its known and
Appeal 2010-010000
Application 12/077,646

6
expected advantages (Ans. 5 & 7). Appellant has not identified disclosure in
either publication that would have dissuaded the skilled worker from having
made such a modification, other than the fact that rinse-through passages
were available to Brown and Rozenkranc, but not used by them for the
trimming blade. Nor has the Appellant directed us to other evidence that
might show that the prior art taught away from the modification. See
Spectralytics, Inc. v Cordis Corp., 649 F. 3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appellant‟s argument is also insufficient to rebut obviousness since an
inventor is free to describe the subject matter he or she regards as his
invention with the features he or she so chooses. There may be a variety of
reasons as to why Brown and Rozenkranc did not include a rinse-through
passage for the trimming blade, but without additional evidence, this
omission is not adequate basis to infer the nonobviousness. There may have
been another reason why they chose to omit this structure from their
invention.
Appellant also contends that it would have not have been obvious to
have placed a rinse-through passage underlying the trimming blade because
it would accumulate considerable less hair than the main blades. (Br. 5.)
This argument is not persuasive. As long as there is some hair present, the
blade would require cleaning and the Examiner‟s logic that a passageway
would facilitate cleaning still holds.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm obviousness rejections 1 and 3 of
claim 1.
Appellant stated that claim 8 is patentable for the same reasons as
claim 1. (Br. 5 & 7.) We therefore affirm rejections 2 and 4 of claim 8 for
the reasons set forth above and by the Examiner. Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 15
Appeal 2010-010000
Application 12/077,646

7
were not separately argued, and therefore fall together. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii). See Br. 6 & 8.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

alw